Some comments from Rick Nebel

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:48 pm

Aero wrote:Roger, why do you think the ion injection gun would be for WB-7? That experiment is over and the review is complete. It might be for WB-7, .

I dont buy carburetors for a car, until I have bought the car.

Aero wrote:but it just as well might operate over a range large enough to feed a larger machine.

No offense Aero, thats a stretch. Designing an ion gun for devices that dont exist, no one knows what size they will be, and no one knows what the fuel requirements are, are simply not a design element in the contract for the ion gun, that I am certain of.

Aero wrote: That experiment is over

One experiment, WB-7 validated WB-6. Now slap on that ion gun and do some more tests. Its called the next experiment.

All the while some kid at UW@Madison is building ion injectors for his fusor.

http://www.rtftechnologies.org/physics/ ... -index.htm

Look at this injector and give me odds that it operates in an area to be benificial to Nebel and WB-7....

http://www.rtftechnologies.org/physics/ ... jector.htm

BTW, isnt this a FUSOR on STEROIDS, a cooled central grid, ion injection, this thing totally rox.

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:30 am

Roger, that's interesting.
I'd say odds of that ion injector being compatible with WB-7 are quite low. I'd say the chances that the same design can be used to build an injector for the same type of fuser with twice the power are quite good.

But Nebel is required to deliver one. To me, that means that, once done, the team will know how to build ion injectors over a range of powers. They could be building one for WB-7, they could just as easily be building one for a different power level, say for the larger machine they are currently shopping around the DOD.
But the easiest path would be to build the first one to WB-7 specs, I'll give you that.
It boils down to, "We don't know, and your guess is as good as mine."

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:55 am

Roger,

Nice find. I blogged it at:

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/ ... actor.html

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:32 am

MSimon wrote:Roger,

Nice find. I blogged it at:

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2008/ ... actor.html

Thanks.

Aero, I can only assume you did not read the link to the ion gun. If so here it is again.

http://www.rtftechnologies.org/physics/ ... jector.htm

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:51 am

Roger wrote:
Aero, I can only assume you did not read the link to the ion gun. If so here it is again.

http://www.rtftechnologies.org/physics/ ... jector.htm

Roger, I did read it, and now I have read it again. It looks to me like that college student had an interesting project. He laid it out so that it could be duplicated by other experimentalists. I wouldn't try to use that design on a polywell, though, would you? What else am I supposed to make of it?

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:44 am

Roger wrote:I dont buy carburetors for a car, until I have bought the car.

Cars run on oil and let me tell you about oil- I'M KIDDING OMG I'M KIDDING.

I am so happy to learn that the neutron counts were presumbably what Bussard said they were. It's so unbelievable to me. I appreciate that Nebel is still being very cautious about this, this is a whole new realm. It's incredible.

bwang · Post by **bwang** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:46 am

Dr Nebel is making more firm comments about the review

Does that mean the review is going to be published soon and that any gag on what was done will be lifted ?

Could Dr Nebel answer since he is providing more info.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:41 am

Josh Cryer wrote:
Roger wrote:I dont buy carburetors for a car, until I have bought the car.
Cars run on oil and let me tell you about oil- I'M KIDDING OMG I'M KIDDING. :lol:

That was very close Josh. ;-)

jabowery · Post by **jabowery** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:38 pm

MSimon wrote:The question is:

are the neutrons coming from a beam-beam core reaction or are they coming from a beam - inventory gas reaction?

The former = good. The latter = not so good.

The next question is:

What did Bussard say the ratio of beam-beam to beam-gas neutrons should be at various scales? Or did he simply not address beam-gas interactions in his models? (That seems most unlike him.)

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:04 pm

IIRC he said that density from the center scales as 1/r^2.

jabowery · Post by **jabowery** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:50 pm

MSimon wrote:IIRC he said that density from the center scales as 1/r^2.

Can one derive the BB:BG neutron ratio from this?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:40 pm

jabowery wrote:
MSimon wrote:IIRC he said that density from the center scales as 1/r^2.
Can one derive the BB:BG neutron ratio from this?

Probably. Measurement is better though. Because reality always trumps math.

jabowery · Post by **jabowery** » Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:06 pm

MSimon wrote: Probably. Measurement is better though. Because reality always trumps math.

Of course. The reason I ask is that it also supports mathematical models that are good, and, as you had said:

With a continuous operation device you can get a collimated beam of neutrons and determine where they are coming from.

Part of the reason I'm concerned about Bussard's model of the BB:BG ratio is that if the ion gun is installed on WB7 and a small ratio is observed, there will be disappointment among the funding sources even though the observation may support immediate investment in a full scale device.

I know that from Bussard's reaction to the WB6 destructive run, he apparently did not expect many BG neutrons, but I'd like to see his model's expected numbers nonetheless.

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:30 am

Roger, it looks as though you were right, the ion gun is for wiffleball 7. They are calling this next project (Jan 8, 2009) a wiffleball 7, and the work they did under "keepalive" surely fits into it. That is, I doubt the Navy totally rejected the EMC2 proposal for a larger machine and sent them back to work on WB-7 as it existed last summer.

Since you are right, I will not doubt you so you now bear the responsibility of being right in your future posts.

So, tell us, just what are they doing and how can we learn about it? Does Alan Boyle know about the new contract yet? Is whiffleball 7, just WB-7 converted to a dodec and therefore, larger? Is it still a truncube and not larger at all? What questions should we be asking?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:45 pm

Aero wrote:Roger, it looks as though you were right, the ion gun is for wiffleball 7. They are calling this next project (Jan 8, 2009) a wiffleball 7, and the work they did under "keepalive" surely fits into it. That is, I doubt the Navy totally rejected the EMC2 proposal for a larger machine and sent them back to work on WB-7 as it existed last summer.

Since you are right, I will not doubt you so you now bear the responsibility of being right in your future posts. :D So, tell us, just what are they doing and how can we learn about it? Does Alan Boyle know about the new contract yet? Is whiffleball 7, just WB-7 converted to a dodec and therefore, larger? Is it still a truncube and not larger at all? What questions should we be asking?

I have informed him.